Alan Dershowitz: Abu M. Zarqawi

Huffington Pest via Yahoo ^ | 12 jun 06 | Alan Dershowitz

[ssaftler]

When it comes to the WOT and the Middle East, Dershowitz is as much on our side as Senator Liebermann.

And boy, does THAT piss off the DUmmies (LOL).

[johnny7]

Dershowitz knows what happens to his a$$ should the Islamo-nazi's ever get ahold of him... he's a rabid socialist... but he ain't nuts.

[mc5cents]

Snipers executing orders in time of war on designated targets were not involved in "targetted assassinations." They were involved in executing war time orders.

That sir is an excellent point.

[swain_forkbeard]

All this talk about "TARGETED" killings leads me to wonder if there is any other reasonable and responsible use of organized violence by a national government. Would targetless killings be preferable? What would that look like anyway? Picking random targets? Non-combatants? Bombing civilian populations. Now THAT sounds like terrorism.

[white trash redneck]

See reply #34.

[Ditto]

I find myself agreeing with Alan Dershowitz? That is scary.

Don't be scared. Dershowitz is a Liberal, a rare breed any more, so we may not agree on some points, but will agree with him on others. He's not a Leftist like those who have seized control of the MSM and the Democrat party over the last few decades. On the War on Terror, Conservatives and the few remaining (surviving) Liberals see mostly eye-to-eye.

[nikos1121]

I think you're right about that...Problem is he should be more vocal in support of our mission. Say what you want, Bush took iniative where very few weaker presidents including his father would have gone...

[Emmett McCarthy]

I seldom agree with Dershowitz, but he's clearly correct here, although I can't see how those who were in the same damn house as Zarqawi can be described as "innocent collateral damage". As far as I'm concerned, we don't have nearly enough targeted assassinations.

I have no military experience, but it seems that there would be only two ways to really fight this kind of war. One is a completely covert, special ops, stealth killing of the bad guys leaders. The other is the conventional method where, once you've got overt troop operations, you go to the "gates of the city", as it were, give them a chance to send out the bad guys for prompt killing and, if they refuse, you level the city. We seem to be doing something in between and I don't understand it. Please, note again that I have no military experience, much less "expertise".

[EDINVA]

well, really, what would one expect from Powell? For a 'war hero' I found him fairly wimpy... he was more like "can't we all get along?" He didn't want to go into Baghdad in '90 thus enabling the Heussein regime during the intervening years and creating a situation where President Bush didn't have much choice by 2003.

[1234]

...In order to win this long struggle we must be willing to meet our opponents on their own level. But it is a shame that to do so we must become in any way similar to them.

i understand the 'hand wringin', but whatsa winner(?) in this mideast toilet gonna do?! long ago, great men decided thay couldn't negotiate w/hitler-could never trust 'im-what's different w/those who have earned the name 'diaperhead terrorists'?

[Stirner]

"what's different w/those who have earned the name 'diaperhead terrorists'?"

Nothing at all is different. We must do whatever it takes. My hand-wringing (and I'll admit that's what it was) is at the thought of the enemy changing us, forcing us to change, and wondering what we'll be like after we have won (which I fully expect to happen). The rough shape I see of a future complex world with enough built in safety for commerce to be worth conducting involves surveillance of just about everything. I can't see any other way to supervise would-be terrorists closely enough that we are protected. Such a world will be much less free in many ways, but that's what the Jihadis have imposed on us.

[nw_arizona_granny]

Bump

[1234]

...The rough shape I see of a future complex world with enough built in safety for commerce to be worth conducting involves surveillance of just about everything. I can't see any other way to supervise would-be terrorists closely enough that we are protected. Such a world will be much less free in many ways, but that's what the Jihadis have imposed on us.

yup; but it needn't be as inhumane and stultifying as "1984".

[Donna Lee Nardo]

"On the killing of Sheik Yassin, head of Hamas, and his successor, Dr. Rantisi..."

Now that brings me back to a real, real happy time... ;)

[Victoria Delsoul]

I applaud the targeted killing of Al Zarqawi.

I do too.